- (1.) This is an application filed by four applicants for triggering insolvency process by invoking Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'IBC') read with Rule-4 and Rule-9 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (for brevity 'IBR'). The application is directed against M/s. AMR Infrastructure Limited. The details of Applicants as disclosed in the application is as follows: Applicant No.1 is a HUF with Shri Nikhil Mehta as its Karta, Applicant No.2 is the wife of Shri Nikhil Mehta who himself is Applicant No.3. Applicant No.4 is Mrs. Praveen Mehta, mother of Applicant No.3. The application has been filed through Power of Attorney holder Shri Suresh Mehta, who is father of Applicant 3 and husband of Applicant No.4. He is also resident of Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.
(2.) It is appropriate to mention that all the Applicants claim themselves to be the "Financial Creditors' within the meaning of the term used in Section-7 of 'IBC. In order to put the controversy in its proper perspective few facts may first be noticed. In accordance with the averments made in the application, the first three Applicants are resident of United States of America and the Applicant No.4, mother of Applicant No.3 resides in Delhi. Respondent viz. M/s. AMR Infrastructure is a Registered Company having its Head Office in Delhi. It is in the real estate business of constructing, promoting and developing commercial and residential properties, office spaces etc. A true typed copy of its Memorandum of Association has been placed on record (Annexure-A).
(3.) Applicants No.3 and 4 booked two Office spaces measuring 1000 sq.ft. in their respective names under the project known as "Kessel-I - Valley" and executed Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.07.2007. It is alleged that the Memorandum of Understanding was lost by the Respondent with a mala fide intention and some ulterior motive. In its place, a new Memorandum of Understanding was sent to the petitioners for signature which had terms and conditions different than the one originally agreed between the parties. As a consequence, the applicants refused to sign the new Memorandum of Understanding and demanded refund of the amount paid by them to the Respondent. The applicants then substituted their booking in the project called "I-Mall" which had shops and other commercial units. It required further investment to purchase a unit in the "l-Mall" project. Accordingly, a fresh Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.10.2012 was executed and unit No.E-06 measuring about 1101 sq.ft. was allotted to the applicant in the project 'l-Mall'. The total price of the unit was Rs.39,57,400/- and a sum of Rs.39,21,300/- was paid by the applicants to Respondent on 17.10.2012 at the time of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding. The balance amount of Rs.36,100/- was to be paid by the applicants 3 & 4 at the time of possession of the aforesaid unit. According to the terms of Memorandum of Understanding, the Respondents were required to build and deliver possession of the unit within two years from the date of execution of the MOU. The Memorandum of Understanding, however, stipulated payment of Rs.82,214/- per month as its "Assured Returns" with effect from 30.10.2012 till the possession of the unit was delivered to the applicant.;